[ May 07, 2014, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh, gods! scientists are bullying us
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
And the bullying isn't working. They need to try a new method other than educating, err I mean scaring people into believing them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think what the commentator from the Heritage Foundation is trying to get across (albeit poorly) that taking tornadoes in Oklahoma, hurricane Sandy, and droughts in California are not a good way to come at Climate Change education. It's the easiest because people are scared of nature out of control. But the fact remains that if our green house gas mix was exactly where scientists believed they should be (bear in mind the cost to do so would be enormous, and many developing countries would offset our attempts) all three of those things would continue to happen regularly.
Are warmer climate related weather phenomenon really on the rise? Can we say their frequency is statistically significant compared to the start of the industrial revolution? If they are rising, how much can be ascribed to human activity since it's incredibly obvious that this planet goes through climate change like teenagers go through phases.
So lets say they are rising, and an enormous chunk of it is man's fault, how do you concretely prove it? We certainly can't predict what the weather will do outside a "Natural disasters will happen with greater frequency, much more than our Earth normally experiences such phenomenon" but we can't even say that with any degree of confidence apparently
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Statistics.
Statistics were designed for people to count a group of random events (say, number of hurricanes in New England), and answer the question of whether the number that were counted indicative of some sort of underlying change or just dumb luck. You *can* flip a coin and get heads 100 times in a row, but statistics tells you that doing so is unlikely enough that you probably don't have a fair coin. You have to use stats across pretty much every scientific discipline, and the rules of statistic don't change with your field. You put your numbers in, and stats has your answer, whether you're a biologist, astronomer, social scientist, or climate scientist.
The American Heritage foundation can ask how scientists are sure about that sort of thing, but they're just being jerks. To think that scientists can get away with making long term climate predictions or stating that, say, the temperature has averaged out to be a wee bit warm lately and X could be the cause WITHOUT proving it via some sort of statistics just doesn't get published.
Last September, it was really really rainy in the semi-arid place where I lived. It rained more in September than it did in at least a third of any of the given *individual years* over the last hundred plus years the NOAA had data for in my city. It was called a thousand-year rainfall. Sure, you could see one of them in your life time it happens. If we see another one any time soon, that's probably a good sign something is up. As an planetary scientist, a good rule of thumb, is that we almost never see an extremely rare event by accident, and we aren't in a very special place or time.
The fun part about ship logs is that they are extremely biased. They are well filled out during boring weather, and during the exciting weather, the guy who wrote that stuff down had better things to do (puking?). And all the logs that weren't filled out during REALLY bad weather are at the bottom of the sea. :-(
[ May 08, 2014, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
To answer your question about developing countries: by putting in the R&D to find he cheapest ways of doing things without burning fossil fuels or coal, we are helping developing countries help themselves, and ultimately, us-- we maky money off the cleaner technologies. And once a country gets its act together, it will prioritize the longer lifespans and smaller health bills of its citizens. And come shopping.
Currently, it's the USA who is one of the worst offenders in terms of consumption, waste and energy usage. One of the side effects of a world where half of all people live in extreme poverty is that they do not consume very much resources. Why not be a model at home.
Climate change issues aside, from a pollution-hurts-the-people currently-alive-and-that-burden-goes-to-the-taxpayers-not-the-ones-selling-it standpoint, reducing the amount of electricity that comes from coal, and the amount everyone uses is a fantastic idea.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Wow. I haven't seen that show before. I'll make a point not to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think the problem with the current education strategy is that it doesn't affect a person's day to day life.
Ice Caps melting? Meh, doesn't really affect my day today.
Ocean levels rising? I live in the mid-west, no big deal.
Hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornados? Meh, They have been happening for millions of years, I know how to deal with them.
It's getting hotter? I live in Las Vegas, it's been 110+ degrees in the summer every year since I was born. I'm used to it.
Colder winters? Snow is snow. I'll shovel the snow and get to work, if it's too bad, I'll get a snow day.
Most people don't see the effects in their daily lives.
The government has tried to regulate to help with climate change, but it is often done with taxes and considered government over reach.
Then there is California, who is considering a "per mile driven" tax. Why? People are buying more fuel efficient cars, so they are losing tax revenue. So for doing the right thing, you end up getting penalized. The car we bought a year ago was a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I'm scared to death that Nevada is going to start considering a similar law. I get around 24 miles to the gallon in the thing, which isn't bad for a mid-sized SUV that can seat 7. Having to pay 2 cents per mile driven would effectively raise my gas bill by .48 a gallon.
We do need to be better about taking care of our planet. I'm just not sure the current method of regulation and taxation helps. People don't look at it as helping the environment, they look at it as government interference.
On a local level here in Las Vegas we have the same kind of issues. There has been a huge push over the past 20 years to reduce our energy and water usage, as we are in a very long draught. The community has done a great job at reducing consumption during this time. My next door neighbor installed solar panels to help power his house. I have solar panels heating my pool instead of electricity. Many people are reducing their power consumption in a variety of ways. The result? The energy company and water district complained that they were not making as much money as they used to because people weren't consuming as much, and asked for massive rate increases. The city approved them, and many people's power bills skyrocketed. I just found out they are asking for another 24% rate increase for January 2015 for single family households.
Education is important. Some regulation is necessary. Punishing people for doing a better job at conserving resources and protecting the environment becomes a deterrent.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I understand why power companies are trying to charge more for less consumption, because the cost of the hookup isn't necessarily paid for with use.
My city is trying to condemn the local utility in favor of government ownership, and since the city council is overrun by environmentalists, they say that their need not to make profit will allow them to incentivize less consumption. Apparently our for-profit utility makes tens of millions per year in profit (and spent an incredible amount of money fighting the local municipalization effort), so I wonder if your utility was trying to keep themselves out of the red, or their profits merely consistent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I understand why power companies are trying to charge more for less consumption, because the cost of the hookup isn't necessarily paid for with use.
power companies usually have an incentive handed to them with regional monopoly and they are acting, rather naturally, on this incentive.
much like the rest of the pile of human and market tendencies that we seem unable to shed, it's part of a larger set of affairs that lend me to believe that we won't really be doing anything to effectively combat global warming until such time as the effects are presently and economically dire.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Somebody still has to pay for the roads.
Somebody still has to pay for the power grid.
Gas taxes are probably the most efficient form of direct taxation in the world because they proportionally tax people who drive the most and thereby use the roads the most. Yes, gas taxes will have to go up, not just because consumption is down (which is still good), but because it hasn't been raised in more than a decade. The National Highway Trust Fund is going broke.
The power grid requires billions in upkeep and billions more to upgrade. I read a great article awhile back about how solar power has an incredible cumulative effect. Every person that signs up for solar makes it more expensive for non-solar, which pushes more people to get solar, and it keeps spiraling until everyone has shifted.
But even after everyone goes to solar and the old power company goes bankrupt, someone still has to maintain the grid. So they can raise your payroll taxes and do it directly, or they can take it right from your power bill as more of a dedicated levy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And on the OP, I actually don't thin Nye is very good in these situations.
He's great in a room of reasonable people who are there for an HONEST discussion.
But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.
And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The car we bought a year ago was a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I'm scared to death that Nevada is going to start considering a similar law. I get around 24 miles to the gallon in the thing, which isn't bad for a mid-sized SUV that can seat 7.
The point of such laws is to pressure not you, the consumer, as much as the manufacturer who has convinced you, absurdly, that 24mpg is somehow approaching acceptable.
Tax-Per-Mile will hit consumers, but there will be plenty of slack in the law for legacy vehicles (probably), and the end-result would be a lot of pressure on manufacturers to introduce cars that meet certain exceptions to the law, ie all-electric, or plug-in hybrids, which would be granted tax exemptions. Taxes are the stick, the exemptions are the carrot.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.
And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.
I disagree. I think anyone with more than half a wit would find Cupp's behavior disgraceful and idiotic. Nye's rational approach was correct.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don't see any justification for a per-mile tax, as opposed to a gas or carbon tax. Why would they do that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And on the OP, I actually don't thin Nye is very good in these situations.
He's great in a room of reasonable people who are there for an HONEST discussion.
But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.
And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.
nye is actually a tremendously strange person and a completely horrible ass. i don't recommend him as a face or an icon for important causes because he's just not a good person and sometimes his utter strangeness leaks through.
but if he wants to entertain himself harmlessly providing a platform of "debate" to mentally and scientifically bankrupt things like creationism, fine by me
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I don't see any justification for a per-mile tax, as opposed to a gas or carbon tax. Why would they do that?
Probably because it sucks telling someone, "Great job at reducing your gas consumption per month from $100 to $50 by getting a more efficient car! Except now that you're buying less gas we still need money from you so we're going to raise gas taxes so that your monthly cost will be $100 again."
The mile per driven tax at least looks a little different.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
A per mile tax is a great way to steal from the middle class. Horrible idea. Lower income families tend to live close to work, or take public transportation. Upper class can afford it. The middle class would be screwed with long commutes from where they can actually afford to live.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
He's the only person with a halfway sane perspective getting media coverage. He has a schtick, yes, but think of this -- he's normal. Everybody ELSE is crazy.
Wow.
And he's a lot more humble than Neil deGrasse Tyson. That guy....
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The car we bought a year ago was a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I'm scared to death that Nevada is going to start considering a similar law. I get around 24 miles to the gallon in the thing, which isn't bad for a mid-sized SUV that can seat 7.
The point of such laws is to pressure not you, the consumer, as much as the manufacturer who has convinced you, absurdly, that 24mpg is somehow approaching acceptable.
Tax-Per-Mile will hit consumers, but there will be plenty of slack in the law for legacy vehicles (probably), and the end-result would be a lot of pressure on manufacturers to introduce cars that meet certain exceptions to the law, ie all-electric, or plug-in hybrids, which would be granted tax exemptions. Taxes are the stick, the exemptions are the carrot.
The manufacturer didn't convince me of anything. We needed a larger vehicle due to family moving in with us from Albania, and none of the vehicles we looked at had good gas mileage. With an increased cost in our electric, food, gas, and water bills due to having 3 (4 when our baby was born) more people living in our house, we needed to find a vehicle that not only would fit everyone, but not drain our wallets.
That vehicle just happened to be the Highlander Hybrid.
Exemptions won't do a thing. We were told for decades that more fuel efficient cars would bring our costs down AND be better for the environment.
Now you are saying that introducing exemptions for electric cars or plug in hybrids would work.
The problem is that introducing exemptions like this as a carrot effectively does the same thing as the push to more fuel efficient vehicles. As more people adopt, fuel tax intake continues to fall, and we are right back in the same place we are now.
That and I don't know of an electric vehicle that can travel from Las Vegas to Disneyland without having to be charged 4 times. Those electric cars that CAN go 200-300 miles on a charge (The Tesla-S) are at a price point most cannot afford ($71,000). GM supposedly has a 200 mile electric car they are currently working on, but it is expected to be a small car like the volt. Not enough room for a family.
There is a better solution to public transportation that would completely eliminate traffic fatalities, our reliance on oil, and the need for constant road work. The problem is I don't think the government would ever want to implement the system, since they would claim too many people would lose their jobs in trucking, transportation, and road work.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: He's the only person with a halfway sane perspective getting media coverage. He has a schtick, yes, but think of this -- he's normal. Everybody ELSE is crazy.
Wow.
And he's a lot more humble than Neil deGrasse Tyson. That guy....
And now I have to ask you the same thing I just asked Samprimary. But about Mr. Tyson.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be fair, what's there to "debate" about religion? It's a load of crap, but you aren't going to convince anyone by talking to them about it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists on the grounds that he is a famous person, and no matter how poorly it goes for the creationist, believers' minds are not swayed, and it gives more publicity for the creationists as well as something to put on their CV.
As for Tyson, he refuses to debate a lot of people-- Alan Stern, PI of the NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto that arrives in 2015, is trying to reopen the planet-hood debate, and Tyson is having none of that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
What is this record, and what are his exact words?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?
Bill Nye can be pleasurable when he's having a good day, but often he's a fairly horrid person to anyone who tries to interact with him ... or anyone he's interacting with. The cruelest of his interactions are usually stories involving him being an ass to cashiers and clerks, or even just kids. He's apparently really bad to kids, for some unknown reason. He was especially nightmarish to his crew and there are even some stories out there from people who dated him at some point or another.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
I don't feel Mr. Tyson is obligated to debate anybody on any topic. From what I've heard he's only indicated he doesn't feel religion should be the lens by which science is viewed in public schools. That's fine by me.
I vigorously proselyted for Mormonism for two years, and still do so to some extent today. Doesn't mean I'm chomping at the bit to debate an atheist in a promoted setting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
So...a refusal to engage in an obligation you think he has makes *him* arrogant?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?
Bill Nye can be pleasurable when he's having a good day, but often he's a fairly horrid person to anyone who tries to interact with him ... or anyone he's interacting with. The cruelest of his interactions are usually stories involving him being an ass to cashiers and clerks, or even just kids. He's apparently really bad to kids, for some unknown reason. He was especially nightmarish to his crew and there are even some stories out there from people who dated him at some point or another.
Any sources for this? Or have you heard all of this personally from these people?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's easy to find people talking about this. Just google "Bill Nye is a jerk".
However, after reading a few such sources, I have concluded that Bill Nye is a guy that would prefer not to be bothered by strangers, and that he sometimes gets annoyed by adolescent behavior in crowds of people he is speaking to. In other words, he's pretty normal, and just lacks some of the skills/pretenses that celebrities normally seem to use to be nice to highly annoying people or in highly annoying situations.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's easy to find people talking about this. Just google "Bill Nye is a jerk".
However, after reading a few such sources, I have concluded that Bill Nye is a guy that would prefer not to be bothered by strangers, and that he sometimes gets annoyed by adolescent behavior in crowds of people he is speaking to. In other words, he's pretty normal, and just lacks some of the skills/pretenses that celebrities normally seem to use to be nice to highly annoying people or in highly annoying situations.
You pretty much just described me. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You're a celebrity? I DEMAND YOUR KINDNESS FOR AS LONG AS CONVENIENT TO ME.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.
And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.
I disagree. I think anyone with more than half a wit would find Cupp's behavior disgraceful and idiotic. Nye's rational approach was correct.
Clearly you aren't the people out there who still require convincing.
I almost want to believe that Cupp was engaging in a piece of Colbert-like performance art media criticism. Because she told Nye directly that what he's doing isn't working, cold logic, reason and analysis isn't doing the trick because there's a gap between the danger and the perceived danger. So even while being a schill for climate change deniers, she made an incredibly insightful point for those who want to do something to fight climate change:
Facts, on their own, don't work.
And that's why Nye is a failure as a face of climate change, science, and anything political. He's not good at arguing, no matter how smart he is, he got absolutely nowhere with them to anyone watching who wasn't already on his side.
I think that's a key difference between him and Tyson. Tyson is much more savvy, aware, and understanding of regular people and the American zeitgeist, and he knows how to tap into it. He never really goes full bore, it's more of a dangle your feet in the water sort of actor in this, but even when he does that he's still much more effective than Nye, who takes the bull by the horns and usually gets gored.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: You're the first person I've heard offer that opinion on Nye. What makes him weird/terrible in your opinion?
Bill Nye can be pleasurable when he's having a good day, but often he's a fairly horrid person to anyone who tries to interact with him ... or anyone he's interacting with. The cruelest of his interactions are usually stories involving him being an ass to cashiers and clerks, or even just kids. He's apparently really bad to kids, for some unknown reason. He was especially nightmarish to his crew and there are even some stories out there from people who dated him at some point or another.
Any sources for this? Or have you heard all of this personally from these people?
yeah individually i have heard stories directly from
1. a person whose sister dated bill 2. a person who was working retail when bill came in and was a tremendous asshole to her for no reason 3. a guy in media who closed an interview with nye early because he was verbally abusing children on set 4. a person who had bill come to her school and he was a buttlord to everyone at said function
additionally there is a recounted event by a child star on set of his show confirming the rumors of his interpersonal... issues ... being true.
if you want tales, they abound on reddit in particular.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
He rejects the label of atheist, and self-identifies as agnostic. He's said plainly that he's not interested in the slightest in the atheist vs. religion debate, he thinks atheism as a categorization is bizarre, which is sort of revealing about his views on religion as a normative national value.
And even if he was an atheist, he'd be the most polite atheist in the world. He goes out of his way to not say that he thinks there's no God, he goes out of his way to discuss science in a way that leaves the door open for God, he goes out of his way to be respectful of all views.
He just doesn't want religion inserted into, or confused with, science.
If you think that's controversial, then I think you have a problem.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But he's terrible at debates, anything hostile, zingers, or anything close to the Crossfire format.
And when people can see him fail, they see his ideas as failing too. He got stomped on in that discussion when Cupp and what's his face left a ton of openings for him to go for the kill.
I disagree. I think anyone with more than half a wit would find Cupp's behavior disgraceful and idiotic. Nye's rational approach was correct.
Clearly you aren't the people out there who still require convincing.
I almost want to believe that Cupp was engaging in a piece of Colbert-like performance art media criticism. Because she told Nye directly that what he's doing isn't working, cold logic, reason and analysis isn't doing the trick because there's a gap between the danger and the perceived danger. So even while being a schill for climate change deniers, she made an incredibly insightful point for those who want to do something to fight climate change:
Facts, on their own, don't work.
And that's why Nye is a failure as a face of climate change, science, and anything political. He's not good at arguing, no matter how smart he is, he got absolutely nowhere with them to anyone watching who wasn't already on his side.
I think that's a key difference between him and Tyson. Tyson is much more savvy, aware, and understanding of regular people and the American zeitgeist, and he knows how to tap into it. He never really goes full bore, it's more of a dangle your feet in the water sort of actor in this, but even when he does that he's still much more effective than Nye, who takes the bull by the horns and usually gets gored.
Agreed. But the host of the show had it backwards. She was accusing scientists of using fear tactics, not facts, to convice people. Fear tactics and exaggeration of realities would probably work better than simple facts. Maybe if scientists started telling people that the larger of a carbon footprint you leave behind the longer you have to stay in a special purgatory when you die, people would be more environmentally friendly...
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: buttlord
Hmmmmm, that's a new one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Buttlord GT is like, what, a decade old by now?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: You're a celebrity? I DEMAND YOUR KINDNESS FOR AS LONG AS CONVENIENT TO ME.
Depends on how you define celebrity. Among a certain group of people engaged in a certain endeavor, my name is instantly recognized and maybe even admired. Unfortunately that group is comprised of only about 1000 people worldwide. Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
He rejects the label of atheist, and self-identifies as agnostic. He's said plainly that he's not interested in the slightest in the atheist vs. religion debate, he thinks atheism as a categorization is bizarre, which is sort of revealing about his views on religion as a normative national value.
And even if he was an atheist, he'd be the most polite atheist in the world. He goes out of his way to not say that he thinks there's no God, he goes out of his way to discuss science in a way that leaves the door open for God, he goes out of his way to be respectful of all views.
He just doesn't want religion inserted into, or confused with, science.
If you think that's controversial, then I think you have a problem.
boom. read this ten times if you have to. the debate format is also staggeringly useless for scientific affairs, too. rejecting a public debate is the right option.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Herblay, my understanding is that Tyson has been the subject of a lot of vituperative coverage by right wing religious outlets, with the "he's so arrogant" approach being commonly used as a way of dismissing what he's saying. Is that a part of the media that you're tuned into?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
All I know is my experience.
I saw a series of at least six or seven clips where he'd discussed how ridiculous religion is. Then, I saw a clip where he states that religion is beside the point and that he's uninterested in discussing it. Even though I'd just been inundated with media of him being belligerent.
I guess I could give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he became uninterested in discussing religion because some of his comments about it had become widely disseminated. It just seemed to me that bagging on religion because it was for the plebes was his schtick.
I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant. But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Tyson's frequently restated position is that he actually doesn't care what people believe (and actively resists being pigeonholed as an 'atheist evangelist' by people who try to frame the religion/science thing under a system where science is 'just another belief'
it's when people take not science and try to wedge it into actual science and science education that he objects and fights back against it.
quote:Tyson: … The problem arises is if you have a religious philosophy that is not based on objective realities that you then want to put in a science classroom. Then I’m going to stand there and say, “No, I’m not going to allow you in the science classroom.” I’m not telling you what to think, I’m just telling you in the science class, “You’re not doing science. This is not science. Keep it out.” That’s where I, that’s when I stand up. Otherwise, go ahead. I’m not telling you how to think.
quote: in 2009, Tyson said: "I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community. I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care."[52]
In March 2014, philosopher and secularism proponent Massimo Pigliucci asked Tyson "What is it you think about God?” Tyson replied "I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence or the power of a divine force operating in the universe." Pigliucci asked him why then did he express discomfort with the label "atheist" in his Big Think video. Tyson replied by reiterating his dislike for one-word labels, saying "That's what adjectives are for. What kind of atheist are you? Are you an ardent atheist? Are you a passive atheist? An apathetic atheist? Do you rally, or do you just not even care? So I'd be on the 'I really don't care' side of that, if you had to find adjectives to put in front of the word 'atheist.'" Pigliucci contrasted Tyson with scientist Richard Dawkins: "[Dawkins] really does consider, at this point, himself to be an atheist activist. You very clearly made the point that you are not." Tyson replied: "I completely respect that activity. He's fulfilling a really important role out there." [53]
You would probably find the same consistent pattern across said clips. Tyson is fairly reliable that way, in how he promotes his agenda.
If that's arrogance, his arrogance is plainly a virtue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: All I know is my experience.
I saw a series of at least six or seven clips where he'd discussed how ridiculous religion is. Then, I saw a clip where he states that religion is beside the point and that he's uninterested in discussing it. Even though I'd just been inundated with media of him being belligerent.
I guess I could give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he became uninterested in discussing religion because some of his comments about it had become widely disseminated. It just seemed to me that bagging on religion because it was for the plebes was his schtick.
I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant. But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.
So what you're saying is that your experience, in this case, is extremely limited, very disjointed, lacking in context, and chosen by whoever created the clips to show Tyson at his most confrontational. Chosen by you, too, since you watched them.
Well, that sounds like a solid basis for forming a sweeping opinion if I've ever heard one. Not in the least bit arrogant, either.
Ok, enough with being harsh. Let me add some context for you: I've listened to at least three dozen of his podcasts, and if religion comes more than once-briefly-an episode it's unusual. If you select your samples from discussions and debates and reactions to reactionaries, then yes, by all means, he might sound arrogant. Until you realize he's likely responding to something about the Creation Museum, or someone advocating 'Intelligent Design' in public schools, financed by tax dollars.
That's about the time you realize he's reacting to religion as though it were any other topic, stripped of its usual untouchability.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant.
So you're acknowledging what you'd previously asserted?
quote:But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.
Who was it excerpting the clips and soundbites from the larger context? What media outlet is it that is presenting these things to you?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So what you're saying is that your experience, in this case, is extremely limited, very disjointed, lacking in context, and chosen by whoever created the clips to show Tyson at his most confrontational. Chosen by you, too, since you watched them.
Well, that sounds like a solid basis for forming a sweeping opinion if I've ever heard one. Not in the least bit arrogant, either.
...
if religion comes more than once-briefly-an episode it's unusual.
This is how everyone's opinions are formed. I'm no different. Just be aware that he comes off like this to AT LEAST SOME casual observers. Why would I waste time listening to his podcasts unless I have a reason? I haven't heard any soundbites of intelligent or thought provoking ideas. I can draw one of two conclusions: - He really is just a blowhard. - The people I know aren't sharing anything worthwhile that he's done.
I'm not saying I know everything. And I've stated that my opinion is biased and not "sweeping". And I might just be one of a large number of people who haven't heard him say anything worthwhile. I have only shared that that I've had a very oblique observation of him, and that what I've seen isn't very complimentary. Does this mean that I claim to know everything about him? No. I just shared an apparently unpopular opinion in good faith, only to be abused by the "experts".
I understand that people might critique me for not having studied the entirety of his work before having a casual opinion. That's stupid. Most people don't. I am being lambasted when I distinctly said that my impression was based on a random assortment of shared clips. The problem isn't mine. The problem is that: - Nobody is sharing worthwhile clips. - Ignorant people are criticizing me for adding to the discussion by sharing a casual opinion.
Should my opinion not be of value? Not everyone has the same experience as you do.
This is the problem with Hatrack now. Why are you pouncing on someone for adding to the discussion with some thought that is different from your own? In a polite manner, nonetheless. I am of the opinion that unique opinions should be of value. But ridicule is definitely a way to respond. (By the way, this critique is for more than one user).
On a related note, I wonder where all of the posters have gone? This board is less active now than it's ever been. Strange.... ______
You are saying that religion comes up once in each podcast. Does this sound like someone who is uninterested in discussing religion?
[ May 12, 2014, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You might be confusing "debate" with "discussion." Tyson has concluded -- quite correctly, IMO -- that it does no good to publicly debate religious fraud with religious frauds.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No. I said "talk / debate about..."
I don't know if he debates religion or not. I just know that there are tons of clips where he seems to be disparaging it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Herblay,
quote:This is how everyone's opinions are formed. I'm no different. Just be aware that he comes off like this to AT LEAST SOME casual observers. Why would I waste time listening to his podcasts unless I have a reason? I haven't heard any soundbites of intelligent or thought provoking ideas. I can draw one of two conclusions: - He really is just a blowhard. - The people I know aren't sharing anything worthwhile that he's done.
Actually, an appreciate response to that sort of experience with anything-person, place, idea-is probably to say 'my initial impression is x, but I really know almost nothing about it'. Which is not what you did. You professed an opinion as though you had substantive grounds to hold it-that is, any experience at all, really-and clung to it. Even now you still are, it's just that your defense is 'everyone has as poor a basis for forming sweeping opinions as I do'. Which isn't true, by the way, though it is for many people.
quote:Should my opinion not be of value? Not everyone has the same experience as you do.
Your opinion has value relative to its basis, just like everyone else's. Your opinion on this topic is of very low value not because it's different, but because it's almost groundless. I do admit to my own bias in this, since I'm clearly a fan of the guy, but this idea-that an opinion is judged partly on the experience that prompts it-is one I try to hold to.
quote:This is the problem with Hatrack now. Why are you pouncing on someone for adding to the discussion with some thought that is different from your own? In a polite manner. (By the way, this critique is for more than one user).
'Pouncing'? Really? I didn't realize you were so fragile. If you'd like, I'll take that into account in the future. It's just that my very limited experience with you led me to conclude you wouldn't object to 'pouncing', and I didn't think I needed anything further to hold that opinion.
quote:You are saying that religion comes up at least once in each podcast. Does this sound like someone who is uninterested in discussing religion?
Fair catch. I misspoke. Meant to say 'if it comes up even once an episode'. But by all means, ignore direct relevant quotes from the man in favor of affirming your opinion based on another form of poor experience.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: No. I said "talk / debate about..."
I don't know if he debates religion or not. I just know that there are tons of clips where he seems to be disparaging it.
Of course you do, what with the strident conviction that this is what he does, it's shocking that your opinion would be affirmed.
"There are tons of clips of..." can be translated out of modern mass media English to, "I know very little about this, and what I do know might be very unreliable."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do people put quotation marks around the word "experts" when they do, in fact, mean people who know more about something than they do?
Yes, Herblay, the opinions of people who know more about something than you do are more valuable than yours. Their greater experience of something is more worthwhile than your limited experience of something. All opinions are not equal.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I never claimed to have anything more than a passing opinion on the guy. An opinion that some people probably share, based on the clips of him being shared around. I've stated that from the first. But you're making the community unfriendly.
What's my crime, Rakeesh? Saying that some people with only a casual understanding of the guy might have a bad impression? I'm sorry I don't have a fanboy PHD on the guy.
Flay me. I don't really care.
<shrug>
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Oh, sorry, and I know almost nothing about anything. So please disregard my opinions regarding everything.
Is that what you wanted to say? Hopefully that makes your day?
Achievement Unlocked: Rakeesh has unlocked INTERNET FANBOY behavior. <victory fanfare>
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Herblay, can you share some of the clips of Tyson being arrogant?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Also, if you're interested in having a larger context to base your opinion of him on, I recommend watching his show "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" on Fox. It's not heavy duty science, but it's fun to watch and usually very interesting. Last night's episode "The Electric Boy" was great.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Also, just watch the extended version of anything he's done rather than a collection of clips used to highlight how arrogant he is.
Until he started doing Cosmos I hadn't even heard anyone mention him and religion in the same sentence. He was always just that astrophysicist guy that shows up on all the talk shows.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
r/atheism posts lots of Tyson quotes, and I've seen them long before Cosmos. But that's their job, to highlight any famous person who says atheist stuff and dig it out to circlejerk with. In that same vein, there are just as many Carl Sagan quotes. He's just as big, IMHO from that set. And probably a few from the not-very-religious founding fathers as well.
Even Dawkins has (had?) a day job. We read "The Selfish Gene" in my women's reading group back in grad school. Maybe one other person besides me was aware he was the same guy as "The God Delusion."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:I never claimed to have anything more than a passing opinion on the guy. An opinion that some people probably share, based on the clips of him being shared around. I've stated that from the first. But you're making the community unfriendly.
Actually, you didn't qualify your opinion at all until it was challenged. And even when you admitted your opinion was all but entirely without context, you still clung to it. Other people on the internet believe something. That *must* mean your opinion has some valid basis! As for making the community unfriendly, you've certainly been at least as unfriendly as I have. Though I'm not whining about it.
quote:What's my crime, Rakeesh? Saying that some people with only a casual understanding of the guy might have a bad impression? I'm sorry I don't have a fanboy PHD on the guy.
You can climb down off that cross of yours anytime, Herblay. I've criticized your opinion because it had a very poor foundation, and asserted that there was some irony in your accusing Tyson of arrogance based on extremely limited knowledge. That's all. Or should I not do that? Does this all fa under what is (or is it?) your doctrine that all opinions are valid? Accuse me of being a fanboy if you like. There's a good hunk of truth in that, which I've already acknowledged, so I'm not sure why it's such a zinger for you. But my criticism isn't because I'm a fan of Tyson's, it's because you professed a profoundly ignorant opinion. We wouldn't even be in disagreement if you would drop this insistence that a ones-her uninformed opinion has some real value.
quote:Flay me. I don't really care.
Oh, of course you don't.
quote:Oh, sorry, and I know almost nothing about anything. So please disregard my opinions regarding everything.
Is that what you wanted to say? Hopefully that makes your day?
Achievement Unlocked: Rakeesh has unlocked INTERNET FANBOY behavior. <victory fanfare>
I think I'm missing something. The fanboy accusation doesn't sting like I think it should. Anyway, my stance is not that you know almost nothing about anything, but rather that you know almost nothing about *this*. Or shall I hold forth on the sportsmanship of a British football player, and insist my opinions be taken seriously, in spite of knowing almost nothing about it? Coming up next: Rakeesh's thoughts on the merits of styles of boxing! Followed by my thoughts on the quality of person Herblay is in his/her everyday life.
Hint: the very fact that I have to say his/her should indicate that while I might have an opinion, I don't have much knowledge at all, and quite aside from issues of bias my ignorance weakens my opinion's merit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm glad we all discovered the extent of not caring that has underlay this entire conversation!
But I do really hope I get to see where the Tyson Is Arrogant megacuts are coming from. He's certainly pissed off the right groups.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I find it interesting that Pigliucci's "rebuttal" of Tyson makes all the errors that Tyson observes are endemic to philosophy, thus pretty neatly proving Tyson's point. And I'm saying this as somebody who enjoys philosophy, but will freely admit that, yes, it's comparatively useless when lined up against the scientific method.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Only the middle link seems to have anything to do with religion. And...not sure if you realize...but proponents of "Intelligent Design(tm)"...like to say that it's not religion, it's just another scientific-AHEM-ish theory of why we're here.
But yeah, apparently he CAN be super snarky.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is not to be confused with arrogance, mind. I get the impression he had a lot of fun poking at "Gravity" precisely because a lot of film critics were going around praising it for its hard science. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Oh, sorry, and I know almost nothing about anything. So please disregard my opinions regarding everything.
Is that what you wanted to say? Hopefully that makes your day?
Try, "Huh. I didn't know that. Maybe I should look into it some more."
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
The trolling of "Gravity" was also a continuation of pointing out astronomically related mistakes or oversights in movies and TV. Forgive me for not citing it precisely, but he has mentioned the night sky in "Titanic" being incorrect during the sinking. In that case, the stars are in the wrong positions for that historical date. Another I vaguely recall is something about the set of The Daily Show, which he bantered with Jon Stewart about a couple times (the decorative world map maybe?).
NDT's tone is always light when he does this. Poking fun for the sake of comedy. It's a running joke at this point. I find it hilarious for how uniquely it is his thing.
And about the atheism thing. He gets a lot of flak from atheists for denying the label for himself. How fun for him that he gets the criticism from both sides. Too atheist! Not atheist enough! He can't win. Which is why I respect his position of focusing on science and leaving the god debating to other folks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why respect his position, when you can watch a few clips and form an opinion? Which you sort of acknowledge is poorly based but stand by nonetheless.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I'm still not sure how I am so blatantly wrong and ignorant. My supposition was that he comes off as arrogant. I guess arrogance has nothing to do with: - Telling people there's no value in studying philosophy. - Calling other people's ideas "stupid". - Putting down other people's "hard science" because he obviously has a better understanding than anyone else. Especially when he can't seem to grasp the concept of hair spray (regarding Mrs. Bullock's hair).
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why respect his position, when you can watch a few clips and form an opinion? Which you sort of acknowledge is poorly based but stand by nonetheless.
My opinion isn't that he IS arrogant. Only that he can be viewed as such. I've been trying my best to reframe it myriad ways to try to get that through to you. It's like talking to a wall.
Your argument, on the other hand, is unclear. Why are you here? Why do you refute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
My original point was -- in refutation to the negative claims on Nye -- that Tyson seems to be a worse advocate for the science agenda. A lot of people find him more respectful, if a tad eccentric.
Let's drop arrogant for the term "snarky". Michael Moore would have had a much stronger position in the forum of public opinion had he not been so snarky. It is my own personal opinion that Tyson is a little too snarky for his own good. If there were more "pro-science" pundits, it would be fine for him to be the renegade type he's going for. But there isn't. Right now, at least, it just seems to be him and Nye. And neither of them are ideal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why respect his position, when you can watch a few clips and form an opinion? Which you sort of acknowledge is poorly based but stand by nonetheless.
My opinion isn't that he IS arrogant. Only that he can be viewed as such. I've been trying my best to reframe it myriad ways to try to get that through to you. It's like talking to a wall.
Your argument, on the other hand, is unclear. Why are you here? Why do you refute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard?
You're sending mixed messages. Sometimes he's hyper arrogant and it's completely reasonable to see him that way. Other times, you admit that your basis for that opinion is limited at best. Forgive me for not understanding you, but you're communicating badly.
As for the last line, I don't dispute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard (it seems you are back to thinking that is what he is, rather than what he seems on an extremely limited sample to be, I can't keep up). I dispute that *your basis* for finding him a blowhard is absurd, and I've consistently described why in detail.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're sending mixed messages. Sometimes he's hyper arrogant and it's completely reasonable to see him that way. Other times, you admit that your basis for that opinion is limited at best. Forgive me for not understanding you, but you're communicating badly.
I never called him "hyper arrogant".
My supposition is that most of the public aren't intimately familiar with all of his work. They must make a judgement based on news articles and soundbites. On the same principle, you can call Paula Deen a racist. That doesn't mean that she is, merely that there is a common public perception that she is racist.
So, my claim is that there is a common public perception that his is arrogant / snarky (choose your term).
I have restated this is many ways, but my message has been consistent. Of course the basis for my opinion is limited. So is everyone's that haven't listened to a bulk of his output.
The problem isn't that he's arrogant. The problem is that it's easy to frame him as such based on some of his comments.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for the last line, I don't dispute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard (it seems you are back to thinking that is what he is, rather than what he seems on an extremely limited sample to be, I can't keep up). I dispute that *your basis* for finding him a blowhard is absurd, and I've consistently described why in detail.
My only point is that a reasonable person might find him as such. He's said some stupid stuff. Why is *my basis* any more absurd than anyone else's? Because you're an expert and you know he isn't?
Pffft.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Herblay: Based on some thing's he has said, he's not a great advocate for science. He can come off as arrogant. Much more so than Bill Nye.
Rakeesh: No way. You have no idea how he can come off. Wait, I see how he can be seen as a blowhard. But he's not. And you can't say that he is. Because you aren't nearly as familiar with his work as I am. Just because he's said some embarrasing things -- which he hasn't!!! -- doesn't mean anything. You're communicating badly. This is absurd. I may be a fanboy, but......
Herblay: <shakes head> I should have shut my mouth on page one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So your stance *is*, then, that a reasonable person might deem someone arrogant/snarky/a blowhard on the basis of extremely limited exposure to material that is chosen for controversy to begin with. Thank you for spelling it out so clearly, finally.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I've gone back over my posts. That's pretty much all I've said, all along. Based on my limited experience with you, I could also say a few things. What is the title of this post again?
Are you Mr. Tyson? Is that why you're getting so bent out of shape that someone could find him arrogant? I mean, a lot of reasonable people are Twitter trolls and ridicule others on Nerdist and Twitter (and Hatrack, apparently). Is there anyone else we should avoid having opinions about?
I'll go crawl in a hole now. I guess since Orincoro's been behaving, SOMEBODY has to half-read my posts, get offended, and give me grief over them.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
You do realize that's not actually Tyson on SNL, right?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
WHAT?????
Okay. Nevermind. He's still a prat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
Here it's definitely not a case of 'I know very little about him, but I think he's arrogant as heck'. One might even say 'hyper arrogant', but I wouldn't want to radically misconstrue you.
quote:I saw a series of at least six or seven clips where he'd discussed how ridiculous religion is. Then, I saw a clip where he states that religion is beside the point and that he's uninterested in discussing it. Even though I'd just been inundated with media of him being belligerent.
Again, not a sample of 'my impression is based on very limited knowledge. In fact you were 'inundated'. By yourself, but let's leave that aside.
quote:I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant. But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.
Now it's an 'outside perspective' based on very little. In the same post, mind. You go on to say that you're just a casual observer, but that's how most people form opinions therefore it's a good method. You also throw in a bit about how you're being abused, while also throwing in the first personal insult. *Eventually* you settle on 'it's a passing opinion'. Though you are quite committed to it even while acknowledging its almost baseless nature.
So, yeah, I'm totally misreading you. You're being consistent and not at all inflammatory yourself, so by all means stay up there on that cross!
Anyway, your final stance that a reasonable person can form an opinion that has much value at all based on almost no knowledge is, of course, silly. You're welcome to defend that proposition if you like, when you're done complaining about what a victim you are.
Having some grounds for an opinion, some knowledge or experience or context-preferably all of that and more!-are not guarantees that one's opinion, one's claim is a good one-and please note I'm saying nothing about whether I personally agree with whatever claim or opinion that might be held by a given person. But those things *are* entry level qualifiers to having some idea what one is talking about. I know almost nothing about good soccer etiquette and sportsmanship. Therefore my perspective on the sportsmanship of athletes in the upcoming World Cup will have little merit, unless I see someone stab another player or something. I know quite a lot about hazardous materials shipping regulations nationally and internationally, so if I then say 'that auditor should have caught that', I should probably be taken more seriously.
I might not be right about Tyson. He might indeed be an arrogan as heck snarky blowhard. But if I'm wrong, it's in spite of my experience and knowledge and likely due to bias. If you're right, it's because you got lucky.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ]You also throw in a bit about how you're being abused, while also throwing in the first personal insult.
Dude. You called me arrogant TWICE before I even responded to you. And certainly before I got snippy with anyone.
Yeah. I'm arrogant. So what. I'm not trying to represent the scientific community. He is. There's a difference. Look. He's got the easiest platform in the world to sell. Science. And he's being an (insert pejorative) about it. Just like Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911, he's got a great train of logic -- but he's shooting himself in the foot with his snarky comments.
[ May 13, 2014, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is remarking that there is some irony in accusing someone of arrogance based on let's just say very limited information a personal insult?
Well, maybe. I meant it as a shot, though at the contradiction in your argument. Rather than, you know, calling you stupid.
Anyway, this has as you say long since been silly. I'll just keep a quote of you validating the idea of forming an opinion based on almost nothing, and sticking by it for future reference. Maybe in a few weeks or months, you'll have an opinion in something you actually have some basis for, and it'll be a subject I know nothing about. I'll post my knee-jerk response based on almost nothing, and insist my opinion be given equal credibility with yours.
When you correctly scorn such a notion, you'll be 'the problem with Hatrack!'
----
Tyson as Michael Moore. Hah! Serious question, man. Is this just trolling? If it is, fair shakes, you completely got me if it's not...goddamn, you are *committed* to this idea, aren't you? Or...wait, aren't you? I forget. I guess we're back at this being more than a passing opinion now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On the same principle, you can call Paula Deen a racist.
For what it's worth, Paula Deen is more racist than Tyson is arrogant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, an opportunity to enact my idea!
"Actually, Tyson might be more arrogant than Deen. I only ever knew a little about her, and that was when her story was big (in some circles) news, and my only exposure to her was brief news headlines and radio blurbs."
Huh. Apparently it's not impossible! Same goes for Michael Moore, incidentally, whom I despise, so it's hardly a fanboy thing.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Public opinion is moved by sound bites and quips. Not by facts.
Moore had some solid facts building up the 911 video. He buried them in snark and stretched accusations. Nobody could take him seriously. You can have a seriously well engineered foundation -- and still ruin a building with a Las Vegas facade.
I want to like Tyson. He's a smart dude. But it's a dangerous world for ideas. If he gives the Fox News crowd ANY fodder to poke fun ... he's not doing his job. Yes, I said HIS JOB. He has taken up the mantle of science crusader. And I feel like he could be doing a better job of it.
<shrug> But if the best we have ends up being Nye? An eccentric in a bowtie? It'll have to suffice. Einstein's dead. And we live in an intellectual wasteland where entire cities in the Golden State refuse immunizations. Too much information and too few people thinking original thoughts.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I hate to say it, but the power is in the hand of the plebes. Why do you think that the Republican party plays down to the church-going farmer? Or the Democrats to the welfare recipient?
The thinkers only hold power as long as they're able to keep the masses placated. And it's rather disconcerting that Washington is increasingly being filled with the latter rather than the former. I the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I [think?] the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
I hear statements along these lines often. But aren't most Senators and Presidents Ivy League grads? You don't get into those schools with D's. Or perhaps are you referring to other gov't workers like FBI/CIA/NSA? Or military soldiers? Or bureaucrats in other depts?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I [think?] the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
I think it's far truer that the D students have all gone into business, and are paying the salaries of those intelligentsia who went into politics.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: But aren't most Senators and Presidents Ivy League grads? You don't get into those schools with D's.
Most presidents, yes. But not the VP. And a preponderance of the Senate actually went to state colleges.
I attended an Ivy League school. It doesn't mean anything. Would you truly qualify George W. as a member of the intelligentsia?
Riddle me this: if you're a "top of the class" lawyer, do you go into politics? Maybe it's an easy answer if you have a lot of family money....
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Riddle me this: if you're a "top of the class" lawyer, do you go into politics? Maybe it's an easy answer if you have a lot of family money....
If you are top of the top I'm pretty sure you go into the Supreme Court...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The thinkers only hold power as long as they're able to keep the masses placated.
or, as a specific example, distract the masses from the validity and importance of a person's argument by image hampering them and making them out to be arrogant
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I [think?] the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
I think it's far truer that the D students have all gone into business, and are paying the salaries of those intelligentsia who went into politics.
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you, Tom. I think at this point I know more Princeton physics PhDs who work as high-frequency traders than ones who work as scientists.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Can you qualify this? We've cataloged Tyson saying that philosophy is a waste of time, calling intelligent design stupid, and making fun of other people's science.
Do you have a single example of Nye being other than patient? Or of him ridiculing someone else for their beliefs?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The anti-philosophy quip was a howler, but no different from most other physicists.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I find it interesting that Pigliucci's "rebuttal" of Tyson makes all the errors that Tyson observes are endemic to philosophy, thus pretty neatly proving Tyson's point. And I'm saying this as somebody who enjoys philosophy, but will freely admit that, yes, it's comparatively useless when lined up against the scientific method.
I don't think it's any different from the scientific method, if you think of philosophy in the right way. It's just that the questions that philosophers ask are harder to reach definitive final answers about. But the good ones use the same method scientists do, essentially.
What were your specific problems with Massimo P's reply? I thought some of it was overly flippant in tone, but I basically agreed with everything he said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Do you have a single example of Nye being other than patient?
you watched him in the link in the OP, right?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Yes. He seemed to be the calm, sane one in the room. He was being ridiculed from the very first, but he refrained from doing the same. Is there a specific part of the clip you're referring to?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Can you qualify this? We've cataloged Tyson saying that philosophy is a waste of time, calling intelligent design stupid, and making fun of other people's science.
Tyson's day job is at a natural history museum! Have you BEEN to the AMNH in NYC? If not you really should go to that above basically anything else in the city. Coolest place ever.
Anyhoo, there are enough fossils in that place that if you work there and still believe intelligent design has any merit whatsoever, you are a silly silly person who has not even slightly walked around your place of employment. The evidence against ID is pretty much staring you in the face.
I got a private tour of the museum (that lasted beyond closing-- can you say "Night at the Museum?") from another astrophysicist who works there, and if he's normal for museum workers (quite possibly not, heh), they have visited the entire gigantic museum and love and know every inch of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Public opinion is moved by sound bites and quips. Not by facts.
And, given the opportunity to do better, you chose to stick to this model.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Public opinion is moved by sound bites and quips. Not by facts.
And, given the opportunity to do better, you chose to stick to this model.
Again, out of place, but no. My only supposition was that he was coming off as arrogant because of such. That's not sticking to the model -- it's describing it. Just because I describe intelligent design doesn't mean I ascribe to it.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Can you qualify this? We've cataloged Tyson saying that philosophy is a waste of time, calling intelligent design stupid, and making fun of other people's science.
Anyhoo, there are enough fossils in that place that if you work there and still believe intelligent design has any merit whatsoever, you are a silly silly person who has not even slightly walked around your place of employment. The evidence against ID is pretty much staring you in the face.
I would not classify intelligent design as anything other than pseudoscience, anymore than I would describe anti-vax as such. That's the view of the mainstream scientific community as well.
There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
The cool thing about science is that we'll never have a perfect understanding of it. We know that we'll never really know. To be so matter-of-fact is anathema to responsible scientific method.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
The cool thing about science is that we'll never have a perfect understanding of it. We know that we'll never really know. To be so matter-of-fact is anathema to responsible scientific method.
Did you and I watch the same clip? He's clearly not calling the people who believe in intelligent design stupid. He's calling the design itself stupid. As in, "Wow, that's a really stupid design, someone should've gone back to the drawing board before going into production."
Yes, the clip is titled "Intelligent Design is Stupid." But Tyson didn't write that title, "Colorado Athiest" did. So it seems your beef there is with the YouTube poster, not the subject of the video.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No. He doesn't say "that's a really stupid design". He relabels "intelligent design" as "stupid design" and refers to it as such multiple times. You don't think that this is a dig at the intelligence of the theory's adherents?
[ May 14, 2014, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think that's a misplaced criticism. The point is not that believers in "intelligent design" are stupid, but rather that what's being called "intelligent design" actually appears to be pretty inefficient, stupid design once you look at it critically. It's a criticism of the designer, not the adherents (except insofar as it tacitly criticizes those adherents for not applying the same basic rigor to their belief.)
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Inasmuch as I start criticizing religion as "stupid religion"? Maybe "idiot religion"? Sure, that's just a critique of the logical inconsistencies of faith itself. Right?
You're rationalizing.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
No, we're watching the whole video. He calls it "Stupid Design" and then goes on to talk about all the ways the "design" is inefficient or hostile to life.
Seriously, you're doing the same thing people on this thread have been criticizing you for since the beginning, namely making snap judgements about Tyson based on out-of-context snippets. And in this case, the whole clip is there for you to judge, if you'd just spend 5 minutes watching the rest of it, instead of stopping after the first 15 seconds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Yes. He seemed to be the calm, sane one in the room. He was being ridiculed from the very first, but he refrained from doing the same. Is there a specific part of the clip you're referring to?
sane, yes. calm? HURRICANES SHMURRICANES
He was being 'arrogant' in the same way we've defined tyson to be 'arrogant' and he's more physically presentational of it even
quote:I would not classify intelligent design as anything other than pseudoscience, anymore than I would describe anti-vax as such. That's the view of the mainstream scientific community as well.
There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
You are aware of what Intelligent Design actually is, right? Calling Intelligent Design stupid isn't even sufficient; the movement itself was also fundamentally dishonest.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
Seriously, you're doing the same thing people on this thread have been criticizing you for since the beginning, namely making snap judgements about Tyson based on out-of-context snippets. And in this case, the whole clip is there for you to judge, if you'd just spend 5 minutes watching the rest of it, instead of stopping after the first 15 seconds.
And you're failing to use your brain. And criticizing me for something I never said. I'm not making a "snap judgement about Tyson". I'm merely saying that he's making mistakes. He's saying stupid things (yes, stupid) that can be construed to make him look like he feels superior to others. As if he is the only one that can decipher the truth. That's arrogance.
Are perception and reality different? Only from an objective perspective.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Ah. Insults. Guess I should've seen that coming.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah tyson has said approximately 0 things that mean "I am the only one that can decipher the truth"
he is making a foundational criticism of a bogus pseudoscientific front that has been pushed to masquerade as science.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point I can't even tell if you actually believe in this shaky limb you've climbed out on, if you're just trolling, or if this is just a vanity-driven avoidance of embarrassment effort over having staked out an absurd position.
The idea that a figure has failed as a representative of something if they say or do something that a hostile party can misconstrue for easily gulled saps-left or right-with clips and sound bites is absurd. Such sound bites exist for everyone representing anything with even a tinge of controversy. It's the 21st century. This is unavoidable.
So the question you have to ask is not 'are there sound bites an ignorant person might fall for' (which, and here's the vanity part, included you initially; now you've modified your position to an opposition to what, Tyson's media profile). Rather the question is, 'who does this person convince?' If they convince fence sitters, they're doing an excellent persuasive job. If they convince the choir, they're mediocre at best. If they drive fence sitters to the opposition, they're doing poorly.
So, Herblay. For this latest ridiculous set of assertions to be valid, you would need to show that people are being repelled into the 'ID is science camp' by Tyson's rhetoric. I await with great anticipation your evidence that such a trend even exists in the United States, much less that Tyson drives a significant part of it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Yes. He seemed to be the calm, sane one in the room. He was being ridiculed from the very first, but he refrained from doing the same. Is there a specific part of the clip you're referring to?
sane, yes. calm? HURRICANES SHMURRICANES
He was being 'arrogant' in the same way we've defined tyson to be 'arrogant' and he's more physically presentational of it even
quote:I would not classify intelligent design as anything other than pseudoscience, anymore than I would describe anti-vax as such. That's the view of the mainstream scientific community as well.
There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
You are aware of what Intelligent Design actually is, right? Calling Intelligent Design stupid isn't even sufficient; the movement itself was also fundamentally dishonest.
I read Herblay's post to mean:
quote: ID is psuedoscience, anti-vax is pseudoscience. While many people who argue with the ID folks know creationists who "updated" their textbooks only by changing the words creationism to intelligent design (evidence is on the web of this one), some people think it means God helped evolution as described by Darwin. They're wrong (because the people who write ID textbooks really are writing creationism), but by calling it stupid design, they think Tyson is insulting these borderline people who don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, trust science but believe in god.
But still (haven't watched the video either), there are lots of examples of things that evolved to work, but could not have been designed intelligently (human backs and eyes), because they are badly designed, and people aren't really aware of that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
right, but in this case it's the issue over tyson calling intelligent design 'stupid design' which he uses as part and parcel evidence that tyson is directly insulting someone who might subscribe to intelligent design as valid science.
i'm saying that tyson could call it stupid AND a bunch of intentional dishonesty strategically used by creationists, and it's still fairly attacking the actual fundamental push for ID as science.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
When I argue with people on the internet, I try very carefully to be sure that I call ideas and not the people who have them stupid, but many people assume that I have insulted them directly anyway.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
As for Tyson, I don't think I would call him arrogant but I am sick of the constant stream of religion bashing he's been doing recently. Not because I disagree with him, I actually agree completely which is why I don't need to keep hearing it. Just give me the science. That's what I used to watch him for.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
To summarize in a different fashion (without calling anyone an idiot): - I make no claims as to Tyson's fundamental character. I don't know the guy. - I think that some of his statements are inflammatory, and I think that it's at least partially intentional. - He has been selected by popular media to represent the scientific community. - I would argue that his inflammatory comments are detrimental to his ability to represent science with credibility. - Everyone agrees that the media can twist media to fit their agenda. - I further posit that the media's misappropriation of audio, video, and text can be avoided by being more "politically correct". A sensitivity of this fact is required of most leaders and television personalities in the modern age. - By criticizing the study of philosophy, using the term "stupid design", and by being snarky on Twitter, Tyson is developing a specific persona. Either by his own intent or accidentally, I would argue that it allows his character to be painted in a certain critical light. - I feel that Mr. Nye's actions are generally much less inflamatory, but that is based on a limited data sample. I'll accede that my opinions are just that.
I apologize that I sometimes feel the need to react to passive-aggressive or outright aggression in kind. I do not appreciate that my ideas are being taken out of context, but I'll admit that my writing style and reframing of certain statements lend to some ambiguity. I do feel, however, that a spirited, emotional argument leads to a broader discussion of a topic.
To those more familiar with his work: - One possibility is that Mr. Tyson is being so "bold" and providing inflammatory sound-bites in order to garner media attention and become more famous. Do you get this impression? - Or he might just be a tad eccentric himself or uninterested in conforming to a more conservative idea of a media personality. - Does he have anything works that might be worthwhile to read, should I have the time? Or is his television program the best place to observe his ideas?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: right, but in this case it's the issue over tyson calling intelligent design 'stupid design' which he uses as part and parcel evidence that tyson is directly insulting someone who might subscribe to intelligent design as valid science.
i'm saying that tyson could call it stupid AND a bunch of intentional dishonesty strategically used by creationists, and it's still fairly attacking the actual fundamental push for ID as science.
I don't feel that he's directly insulting anyone. Nor that he's intentionally doing it to be aggravating. Merely that there's a consequence to his action, it's rather brash and crude, and that it alters certain people's impression of him.
How many advocates of ID actually understand the science behind it? I'm guessing very few? But he's still calling "stupid" an idea that some people believe in. This could be construed many ways. I'm not painting it a certain color -- I'm just saying that people COULD take offense.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: But he's still calling "stupid" an idea that some people believe in.
He's actually not. He's not saying that ID is a stupid idea. (He may think so, but that's not what he was saying.) He's saying that if you look for evidence of design in nature you find a lot of things that an intentional, intelligent, designer would have done differently. So either those things were not designed or the designer was not particularly intelligent. The design is stupid.
That said, an intelligent communicator could have guessed that the phrase would be misinterpreted in exactly the way you've illustrated here. Throwing the word "stupid" into a conversation in any form is unlikely to end well.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: He's actually not. He's not saying that ID is a stupid idea.
I understand that he is saying that the design is stupid. But he refers to "intelligent design" by the moniker "stupid design" at least once. Can one not infer, then, that he's calling the entire concept stupid? And by proxy its adherents? Each assumption is a change of reference, but they are both logical possible conclusions.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It's certainly not a deductive conclusion, i.e. - there is no entailment relationship. Maybe there's a reasonable inductive inference to be made, though ideally that would be justified with knowledge about NDT and not what people might mean in general when using the word stupid. Even then, I'm not sure it's entirely warranted.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: He's actually not. He's not saying that ID is a stupid idea.
I understand that he is saying that the design is stupid. But he refers to "intelligent design" by the moniker "stupid design" at least once. Can one not infer, then, that he's calling the entire concept stupid?
One could so infer, but that does not mean one would be correct. I would even venture to say that one would be assuming facts not in evidence, and assuming these facts because of one's prior assumptions and biases.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
For him to be calling the concept stupid he would have to be applying the adjective to the concept, not to the design itself. So I would say no, one cannot (fairly) infer that.
Although as I said earlier, I think the fact that people would infer that could have been anticipated. So it may be that he knew it would happen and chose to use that phrasing anyway. Or it may be that he shares a blind spot with many other highly rational people about the difference between what they say and what people hear.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
more recent nye, I guess he was on with john oliver
Scroll up a bit to my last post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh. haha
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For him to be calling the concept stupid he would have to be applying the adjective to the concept, not to the design itself. So I would say no, one cannot (fairly) infer that.
Although as I said earlier, I think the fact that people would infer that could have been anticipated. So it may be that he knew it would happen and chose to use that phrasing anyway. Or it may be that he shares a blind spot with many other highly rational people about the difference between what they say and what people hear.
I will grant you that the adjective to the design itself in the line "And so, this is all simply stupid design. And the problem is, if you look for what is intelligent and yeah you can find some things that are just really beautiful."
But he is purposefully twisting the intelligent design concept and referring to it as stupid design in the line "I wanna do just a fast tirade on stupid design."
It is an obvious play on words. You can argue otherwise, but your point is semantics. He either did it on purpose or he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Bill Nye on John Oliver. Good stuff.
As for Tyson, I don't think I would call him arrogant but I am sick of the constant stream of religion bashing he's been doing recently. Not because I disagree with him, I actually agree completely which is why I don't need to keep hearing it. Just give me the science. That's what I used to watch him for.
Where is your evidence of religion bashing? You better get your sources lined up. Because nobody will look it up themselves or take your word for it.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: more recent nye, I guess he was on with john oliver
As for Tyson, I don't think I would call him arrogant but I am sick of the constant stream of religion bashing he's been doing recently. Not because I disagree with him, I actually agree completely which is why I don't need to keep hearing it. Just give me the science. That's what I used to watch him for.
Where is your evidence of religion bashing? You better get your sources lined up. Because nobody will look it up themselves or take your word for it.
You've been linked to and also referenced to much larger samples than your cherry picked clips, and flat out refused to give them a listen.
But hey, man, keep on keeping on up on that cross.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For him to be calling the concept stupid he would have to be applying the adjective to the concept, not to the design itself. So I would say no, one cannot (fairly) infer that.
Although as I said earlier, I think the fact that people would infer that could have been anticipated. So it may be that he knew it would happen and chose to use that phrasing anyway. Or it may be that he shares a blind spot with many other highly rational people about the difference between what they say and what people hear.
I will grant you that the adjective to the design itself in the line "And so, this is all simply stupid design. And the problem is, if you look for what is intelligent and yeah you can find some things that are just really beautiful."
But he is purposefully twisting the intelligent design concept and referring to it as stupid design in the line "I wanna do just a fast tirade on stupid design."
It is an obvious play on words. You can argue otherwise, but your point is semantics. He either did it on purpose or he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
You've clearly made up your mind based on preconceived notions, and I doubt any amount of debate will change that. Oh well, you're missing out on a lot of very interesting and entertaining media. Your loss.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Rakeesh: My point was that Tyson could come off as arrogant in some clips. How would other clips, where he's conceivably less arrogant (?), prove anything otherwise? If I get shot by a Colt handgun, might I not have a bullet wound because I'm waiting on a bullet wound from a Remington?
narrativium: Using reason, can you tell me how his "tirade on stupid design" is not a play on words and a direct reference to intelligent design? And I'm not even arguing that he did it with intent. He did, but that's completely beside the point. I'm not arguing that the guy's worthless. I even asked if anyone had anything good they could point me to because I'm interested. <shrug>
My argument is that something can be perceived a certain way. That's it. How the smeg do you logically argue against that? I'm flabbergasted.
I feel like I'm caught in the middle of a "Batman is better than Superman" argument. And I'm only saying that Superman can be powerful. I don't care how cool Batman is. Superman is still powerful.
Batman is cooler than Superman --- your argument is invalid.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Rakeesh: My point was that Tyson could come off as arrogant in some clips.
It was?
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: He's the only person with a halfway sane perspective getting media coverage. He has a schtick, yes, but think of this -- he's normal. Everybody ELSE is crazy.
Wow.
And he's a lot more humble than Neil deGrasse Tyson. That guy....
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That was a few revisions of statement (without saying they were revisions) ago. Now it seems to be a purely pragmatic political/persuasive opposition to a few specific sound bites, and a dogged determination to criticize someone on the basis of the harshest possible interpretation of a tiny fraction of their work.
I would restate my observation of the irony of the initial label of arrogance, but I fear I would be a 'problem of Hatrack'...not that causes any 'care' or anything! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:My argument is that something can be perceived a certain way. That's it. How the smeg do you logically argue against that? I'm flabbergasted.
If that had been your argument from the beginning, nobody would have been calling you out on it.
But it wasn't your argument, and the argument you were providing had a heck of a lot more particulars than 'something can be perceived a certain way'
like this:
quote:But he refers to "intelligent design" by the moniker "stupid design" at least once. Can one not infer, then, that he's calling the entire concept stupid? And by proxy its adherents?
Whoa! See, that there's a lot more particular. If he's calling the entire intelligent design concept stupid is he calling its adherents stupid by proxy?
The answer is a resounding "no" and before that there was
quote:he's shooting himself in the foot with his snarky comments.
and this one is easily challenged on whether or not he is having his impact as a science spokesperson meaningfully harmed by his snark among any crowd not already predisposed against him (not really)
etc etc
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I used to think it was possible to have an opinion. Now, three pages later, I'm not so certain.
I still haven't seen a clip, been referred to a talk, or heard a dang thing to make me believe that Tyson isn't a swaggering, belligerent, arrogant blowhard. Every time I've asked, nobody can come up with anything worthwhile to give me. Matter of fact, they ignore the question and lambast me for their version of something they think I said. Maybe I could just come to the conclusion that the same adjectives could be applied to his fanboys.
Or maybe that would be too big of a logical implication for some people to follow.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I was arguing fact, but I mentioned my opinion. Obviously this confused some of you. Every time I tried to steer the discussion back, I just had my opinion (which I still hold) thrown back in my face. Why does my opinion matter?
I'd feel better about it if this conversation had produced anything worthwhile. But it's been more like taunting monkeys in a cage.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I was arguing fact,
You were not. You were arguing opinion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, Herblay, you're right! We *are* the problem with Hatrack! What with all the personal attacks, unnecessary insults, deliberate ignoring of direct statements...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Every time I've asked, nobody can come up with anything worthwhile to give me.
uh
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I was arguing fact,
You were not. You were arguing opinion.
My opinion is he's arrogant. The fact is that he can be construed as arrogant based on inflammatory statements.
I haven't deviated from this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So now we're back to 'my opinion is that he's an arrogant blowhard' based on a tiny selection of cherry picked statements. Rather than 'my opinion is that some people will perceive him as, and it's not a good way to evaluate people, but that's the world we live in, where people do that'.
Do you flip a coin for each post to determine which of these stances you'll adopt each time? You do realize memories go back further than just a few minutes, and even if they didn't, people can just go look, right?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So now we're back to 'my opinion is that he's an arrogant blowhard' based on a tiny selection of cherry picked statements. Rather than 'my opinion is that some people will perceive him as, and it's not a good way to evaluate people, but that's the world we live in, where people do that'.
Do you flip a coin for each post to determine which of these stances you'll adopt each time? You do realize memories go back further than just a few minutes, and even if they didn't, people can just go look, right?
Again -- two statements here: - My opinion is that he's arrogant. - The fact is that some of his statements can be construed as such.
I kept my opinion out of the discussion because you can't seem to be able to parse the two statements. I apologize if you can't understand the difference. I'll be sure to note your handicap in our next discussion. I want to say so much more than this. I'm just trying for patience in the face of ... I guess you have seen the thread's title.
Is there a hidden camera? Are you being ridiculous on purpose?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you've been trying to keep your opinion out of this, goodness knows what it looks like when you don't. Shrieking profanities? Who knows?
Anyway, your opinion is quite simply stupid. Not because it's right or wrong, but because of the method by which you believe it. It is, frankly, laughable that you would insist someone is a bad scientific spokesperson because they refuse to embrace some uncertainty, considering your opinion-making methods. You don't say 'man, he sounds like an arrogant blowhard, but I don't know/will wait to form a more solid opinion based on more genuine evidence'.
Nope. Instead, you saw some clips once, formed an opinion-the opinion intended by the creator of those clips, no doibt, there's a good little sheep-and then insist your opinion is worthy of respect.
This isn't a fanboy thing, though I suspect you'll pivot back to that as well. The initial defense was in part because I dig the guy, sure. But as much and even more as time has passed by 'what a ridiculous, lazy way to form an opinion, by accepting wholesale sound-bite hatchet-jobs by opponents and sensationalists'. In the various shifts in your stance, sometimes you've moved away from that, but now you're right back.
As for your (false, and at this point it is simply a lie) claim that no one has offered contrary evidence, I'll say it again: go listen to the *entirety* of the interviews and discussions these clips are referencing. Don't claim you don't have time-clearly you do. Either that, or simply admit what is obvious: that you've formed your opinion and you have no interest in determining whether or not it might be valid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
herblay if everyone else here trying to talk to you about this is trying to point out that it's you who is missing something, does this ... have any significant chance of bringing out a re-evaluation of your stance, or are you just gonna keep saying other people are being ridiculous on purpose, or
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
osc's latest column reminds me that Garrison Keillor is also one of those people who turns out to be a tremendous ass in person
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Any juicy stories, or someone who just gets sick of being harassed and isn't bubbly in real life?
I do know two people who went to school with Tyson, at least one of them hangs out with him when he's in town (and when I met Tyson at a book signing about 5 years ago and said where I was a student, Tyson asked after him)-- the only story I have is that Tyson predicted that he would be recognized three times in the course of a, say, 0.5 mile walk the two took, and he was exactly right.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)